Imagine being tasked with finding a storage medium that’s robust and reliable enough to remain unchanged for thousands of years. What for? To store the entire human genome so that the data could be accessed if discovered in the very distant future. You would likely first discard the storage media we use today.
Current hard drives and USB sticks would become useless after a few years. While ancient civilizations carved information into rocks to preserve information, this isn’t an ideal option today. What if you could utilize advanced materials and techniques? A team of researchers at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom seems to have found a solution.
A 5G Memory Quartz to the Rescue
While seeking an “everlasting” storage medium for the human genome, the research team found a solution at the university’s Optoelectronics Research Center (ORC). Scientists at the ORC developed a 5D memory crystal capable of storing up to 360 TB of information without data loss for “billions of years.”
However, using quartz crystals to store information for long periods isn’t entirely new. In 2014, this innovation won the Guinness World Record for the most durable data storage material, and Microsoft later utilized it in its Project Silica. Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Southampton employed a new technique for inscribing data.
The method used for laser engraving the entire material involved using two optical dimensions and three coordinates instead of just inscribing the surface faces.
The Memory of Mankind archive.
The team has also considered data recovery. The outside of the memory quartz stored in the Memory of Humanity archive, a time capsule in Austria, provides instructions on how to access the stored content.
According to researchers, they used a highly robust storage medium that can withstand extreme climatic conditions, such as temperatures of slightly over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Memory crystals can also endure freezing temperatures and fire without any issues. Can they withstand an impact of around 65 tons per square inch? Absolutely, data should remain unchanged.
Image | University of Southampton | Erik Werlin
View 0 comments